The article evaluation process has been updated with the decision of the Editorial Board dated June 30, 2025.
1- Preliminary Review Stage
Articles that have not been previously published or are not currently under review by another journal and are approved by each author are accepted for evaluation.
In order to prevent ethical violations, articles submitted to the journal are screened through a plagiarism detection program (https://intihal.net/). The similarity report is examined by the editor to check whether attention has been paid to the “difference between citation and quotation.” In cases where unethical situations that are not in compliance with academic writing are identified in the text, the study is returned to the author(s).
Articles submitted to the journal are reviewed by the preliminary review editor for compliance with the journal’s writing and formatting guidelines. In necessary cases, a request for correction is sent to the corresponding author. If the article is not brought into compliance with the journal’s writing and formatting rules despite two correction requests, the study is returned to the author(s).
Articles that pass the similarity report and conform to the writing/formatting rules enter a two-stage process consisting of editorial internal review and external peer review.
2- Editorial Internal Review (Type of Review: Double-Blind Peer Review)
The editor refers the articles suitable to the publication policy of the Journal of Area Studies to internal reviewers for editorial review. Two internal reviewers selected from among the Editorial Board members based on their areas of expertise evaluate the article in terms of subject, methodology, and results and decide whether it should proceed to a detailed evaluation process. If the Editorial Board members express a negative opinion, the article is rejected without proceeding to the external review stage.
If one of the two reviewers expresses a positive opinion and the other a negative one, the study is sent to a third reviewer.
Throughout the process, the identity of the internal reviewers is kept confidential from the author, and the author’s identity is also hidden from the reviewers.
3- External Peer Review (Type of Review: Double-Blind Peer Review)
Articles that successfully pass the editorial internal review are sent by the field editor to two external reviewers with relevant research on the subject. If experts with studies on the topic cannot be found, reviewers are selected from among researchers with a doctoral degree in the relevant discipline.
The reviewers evaluate the article in detail in terms of subject, methodology, and results, and provide an opinion on whether it should be published. If both reviewer reports are positive, the study is accepted for publication by the editor’s decision. If one of the two reviewers expresses a negative opinion, the study is sent to a third reviewer. Studies are accepted for publication with the positive decision of at least two reviewers.
During the review process, reviewers are expected to evaluate the article by considering the following points:
1) Does the article contain new and important information?
2) Does the abstract clearly and accurately reflect the content of the article?
3) Is the methodology comprehensively and clearly described?
4) Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
5) Are sufficient references made to other studies in the field?
6) Is the language quality adequate?
If the reviewers request corrections in the text they review, the relevant reports are sent to the author, and the author is asked to make the necessary corrections. The author carries out the corrections in a way visible to the field editor and resubmits the work. If the author does not agree with the reviewers’ opinions, they are given the right to object and defend their views.
Throughout the process, external reviewers cannot learn the author’s identity, and vice versa.
Accepted studies are submitted for review by the final proofreader and the foreign language editor.
Responsibilities of the Editor
1) The editor evaluates manuscripts based on their scientific content, regardless of the authors’ ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief, or political philosophy.
2) The editor ensures a fair double-blind peer review process for manuscripts submitted for publication and guarantees that all information regarding submitted manuscripts is kept confidential before publication.
3) The editor informs reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. Reviewers and editorial board members may not discuss the manuscripts with others. Reviewer anonymity must be preserved. In specific cases, the editor may share one reviewer’s comments with other reviewers to clarify a point.
4) The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication. When necessary, the editor is also responsible for publishing corrections or retractions.
5) The editor does not allow any conflict of interest between authors, editors, and reviewers. They have full authority to assign reviewers and are responsible for the final decision on the publication of manuscripts in the Journal.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
1) Reviewers should have no conflict of interest regarding the research, the authors, and/or the research funders. Their judgments should be objective.
2) Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality of all information regarding submitted manuscripts and inform the editor if they become aware of any copyright infringement or plagiarism by the author.
3) A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the subject of a manuscript or knows that timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.